Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Protesters as terrorists?

An ethnographic analysis of the political process behind the broadened scope of anti-terrorism legislation

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The attack on the World Trade Center in September 2001 in New York has led to a worldwide increase in anti-terrorism legislation and much debate about the proper (legitimate, proportional and effective) response to the perceived threat of mass casualty attacks. In practice, however, anti-terrorism legislation is frequently applied in criminal cases that are unrelated to such mass casualty attacks. Instead, terrorism charges are leveled against conduct that was previously not categorized as terrorism and which is not always easy to distinguish from ordinary crimes, civil disobedience or legitimate protest activities, such as aggressive leafleting, sabotage of machinery, arson and offensive speech. This article explores the political process behind the categorization of such conduct as “terrorism” and the expanded scope of anti-terrorism legislation in the United States, Spain and Chile. Based on ethnographic fieldwork and the analysis of cases in which conduct is newly charged as terrorism, the author shows that these charges are the result of a deliberate campaign by groups in society that feel neglected by the government and appeal to the terrorism label in their demand for better protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, which hinges on disagreement about the recognition or denial of state behavior and colonial struggles as terrorism (known as the “right of resistance”) [56, p.25; 107]. Some scholars have questioned whether (transnational) terrorist acts should be considered a crime instead of, for example, an act of war, or a third category [25] and whether such acts can be prosecuted in ordinary criminal courts. The cases in this article are limited to conduct and legislation where terrorism has squarely been defined as a crime. Indeed, in none of the cases does the question rise whether the actions in question should be considered acts of war or a third category.

  2. For example Human Rights Watch regularly makes such analyses, criticizing overly broad formulations in draft laws, such as in the Philippines:

    Human Rights Watch is concerned that this definition is vague and overbroad, and could allow the government to transform less serious offenses, such as vandalism, or legitimate acts of protest, into crimes punishable by a mandatory 40-year sentence. Under this definition, for example, a political protestor demanding that the president resign, who sets fire to an effigy (committing arson or destruction of property), could conceivably be charged with terrorism and, if convicted, sent to prison for 40 years. [52]

    Human Rights Watch also, for example, recommends the UK government change the definition of its Terrorism Act “so as to limit its potential misapplication against peaceful protesters” [53, p.25].

  3. Hess specifically emphasizes the stigmatizing function of the terrorism label [47].

  4. Demleitner has noted that it is not even that straightforward to determine what, among anti-terrorism statutes and provisions, exactly counts as a terrorism offense [19, p.38]. For the purposes of this article, anti-terrorism legislation is understood to be every provision that explicitly labels conduct as “terrorism.”

  5. Another airplane was used to attack the Pentagon.

  6. Indeed, anyone seeming to challenge this conclusion risks social exclusion or retribution, as was shown by the firing of Ward Churchill from the University of Colorado over a controversial essay in which he argued that American foreign policy provoked the attacks.

  7. An organization that provides research, analysis and advice to governments and intergovernmental bodies on the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict (website http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about.aspx).

  8. http://home.heinonline.org.proxy.library.uu.nl/.

  9. Interview with author, November 2007, New Jersey.

  10. Interviews with author in the United States, Chile, and Spain, 2007-2009.

  11. Interview with author, June 2008, Madrid.

  12. The PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) is an organization in Turkey which is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

  13. The U.S. Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001.

  14. A full analysis of the development of criminal prosecutions in each of the countries in this article can be found in the author’s dissertation Ethnographies of Contentious Criminalization: Expansion, Ambivalence, Marginalization, submitted in fulfillment of the JSD Degree at Columbia Law School, 2012, available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:14864.

  15. In many different judgments the United States, Spain, and Chile are currently considered to be well established democracies. See for example http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm Accessed June 1, 2007 (I only accepted division 1); Polity IV Project, http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/polity/ accessed June 30th, 2007 (I only accepted level 9/10); http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw/FIWAllScores.xls accessed 4 November 2009 (I only accepted level 1/2). These high ratings by no means indicate a perfect liberal democracy. They do, however, indicate that these are currently the actual liberal democracies that are furthest developed towards the ideal type.

  16. The same statements are also reproduced on the website of the fur commission, a part of which is devoted to the case against Peter Young: http://www.furcommission.com/resource/pressYoung.htm.

  17. AETA: ‘Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises

    ‘(a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce—

    ‘(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and

    ‘(2) in connection with such purpose—

    ‘(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;

    ‘(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or

    ‘(C) conspires or attempts to do so;

    shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).

  18. Conversation January 2010, Durango.

  19. Cristóbal Díaz Lombardo even criticizes the politicization of victims, who have gone “from not having voice or vote to the ability to influence the vote” [13, p.40].

  20. In the words of the Chief Prosecutor at the Audiencia Nacional in Madrid, interview with author, May 2008, Madrid.

  21. 15 November 2007, Audiencia Nacional, #67/2007.

  22. “The knowledge of what the letters ETA mean and the symbol of the coiled snake and the axe are public and notorious” (Verdict, 2nd consideration).

  23. This indicates a difference therefore from the crime of apologia [endorsement], which as Landáburu points out, is a crime in relation to the general offense of membership in a terrorist organization [60, p.15].

  24. Law 7/2000 is a further modification of article 577 of the Penal Code.

  25. Indeed, the Chief Prosecutor of the Audiencia Nacional regarded this legal reform necessary to continue the prosecution of Kale Borroka as terrorist crimes. Interview of author with the Chief Prosecutor of the Audiencia Nacional, Madrid, May 2008.

  26. For the different hypotheses regarding the motivation, occurrence and targets of street violence, see for example, de la Calle Robles [18] and van den Broek [100].

  27. Tribunal Supremo Sala 2ª, S 8-7-1994, nº 1398/1994, rec. 35/1994.

  28. Tribunal Supremo Sala 2ª, S 8-7-1994, nº 1398/1994, rec. 35/1994, sixth consideration. The Court emphasized that the imposed sentence was the minimum allowed by the law for that particular offense.

  29. Interviews with author, January – June 2008.

  30. Testimony of J.L. during the trial against the Lonkos of Traiguén, April 2003, Causa R.I.T. 2-2003 R.U.C. 0100083503-6 Fiscalía Traiguen, Codigo: 00837. In January 2013, this landowner and his wife died when their house was set on fire [44].

  31. The anti-terrorist law determines that specifically enumerated crimes can be considered “terrorist” crimes when they are committed[c]on la finalidad de producir en la población o en una parte de ella el temor justificado de ser víctima de delitos de la misma especie, sea por la naturaleza y efectos de los medios empleados, sea por la evidencia de que obedece a un plan premeditado de atentar contra una categoría o grupo determinado de personas [with the objective to produce in the population or a part of it the justified fear to be victim of crimes of the same sort, either because of the nature and effects of the used medium, or because it evidently obeys to a premeditated plan to attack against a category or specific group of persons.] Article 1 of Law No. 18.314 (Law on Terrorist Conduct). This law has been changed several times, most recently in October 2010. Now it adds a circumstance which can turn an act into a “terrorist” offense: sea porque se cometa para arrancar o inhibir resoluciones de la autoridad o imponerle exigencias [or because it is committed to run away from or inhibit decisions of the authorities or impose demands].

  32. Interviews with various Mapuche activists between November 2002 and April 2003

  33. Consideration 19, Appeals Court Concepcion, 4 June 2004.

  34. In September 2010, President Sebastián Piñera promised the hunger strikers to change the terrorism charges to ordinary crimes. On 8 October 2010, the Attorney General, however, refused to do this arguing that this would be illegal, unconstitutional, and that it could actually be a crime to change those charges [59].

  35. Interview with author, January 2003, Temuco, Chile.

  36. This was expressed repeatedly in the trial in April-June 2008, Madrid, against the prisoner support group Gestoras pro Amnistía, an organization that was held responsible, among other things, for the organization of honoring ceremonies for ex-convict ETA-members.

  37. Personal conversation, August 2010, Freiburg.

  38. While in most of the cases the sentences are indeed significantly higher than for ordinary crimes, there are exceptions. In the case of Peter Young for example, the RICO-based charges could have landed him in jail for 82 years. Under the terrorism charge of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), his charges were limited to 2 years.

  39. The Public Ministry in Chile is the organ responsible for criminal prosecutions.

  40. This is also why the judge dismissed the case.

  41. Activists sometimes claim that these actions should not be subjected to criminal prosecutions at all. There are occasions where such acts could indeed be considered a form of ‘civil disobedience’ or constitute legitimate resistance. Whether this is indeed the case and whether, under what conditions, and how such qualification should have an impact on a criminal justice response is, however, outside the scope of this paper.

References

  1. 02.21.07 - Peter’s Support Sponsors. (2007). http://supportpeter.com/updates.htm. Accessed 30 Oct 2010.

  2. 11.17.05 - Peter’s Statement to the Court. (2005). http://supportpeter.com/statements.htm. Accessed 30 Oct 2010.

  3. Albahary, D. (2010). The fine line between animal advocacy and enterprise terrorism. 6 J. Animal L. 131.

  4. Amnesty International. (2009). Amnesty International Report 2009: Spain, http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/europe-central-asia/spain. Accessed 11 May 2011.

  5. Armborst, A. (2010). Modelling terrorism and political violence 24. International Relations, 4, 414–432.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barrera, A. (1999). El Grito Mapuche. Una historia inconclusa. Santiago: Grijalbo.

    Google Scholar 

  7. BBC News. (2010). Sri Lankan president pardons convicted Tamil editor. 3 May 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8657805.stm. Accessed 1 June 2010.

  8. Becker, H. (1986). Writing for social scientists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Begorre-Bret, C. (2005–2006). The Definition of terrorism and the challenge of relativism, 27 Cardozo L. Rev. 1987.

  10. Cardona, M. (2009). El Salvador: repression in the name of anti-terrorism. Cornell International Law Journal, 129.

  11. Catalina Benavente, M., & Manso Porto, T. (2013). Combating the terrorism of ETA with the penal model. Crime, Law and Social Change. doi:10.1007/s10611-013-9465-7.

  12. Cayuqueo, P. (2005). Azkintuwe, 22 July 2005. http://www.escaner.cl/escaner75/origen.htm. Accessed 16 Sep 2010.

  13. Center for Constitutional Rights. (2010). U.S.A. v. Buddenberg. http://www.ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/usa-v-buddenberg. Accessed 29 Oct 2010.

  14. CIDSE (2010). Impacts of extractive industries in Latin America. January 2009 http://www.cidse.org/uploadedFiles/Regions/Latin_America/EPLA%20analysis%20final%20ENG.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2010.

  15. Cooperativa. (2006). Bachelet reafirmó que no se volverá a aplicar ley antiterrorista contra mapuches at Cooperativa.cl 13 May 2006, http://prontus.cooperativa.cl/prontus_nots/site/artic/20060513/pags/20060513141702.html. Accessed 12 April 2011.

  16. Cooperativa. (2010). Fiscal nacional: Cerrar causas contra comuneros mapuche podría constituir un delito. Cooperativa.cl 5 October 2010, http://www.cooperativa.cl/fiscal-nacional--cerrar-causas-contra-comuneros-mapuche-podria-constituir-un-delito/prontus_nots/2010-10-05/084111.html. Accessed 5 Oct 2010.

  17. Cortright, D. (2008). Friend not foe: Civil Society and the Struggle against Violent Extremism. A report to Cordaid from the Fourth Freedom Forum and Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

  18. de la Calle Robles, L. (2007). Fighting for local control: street violence in the Basque Country. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 431–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Demleitner, N. V. (2003–2004). How many terrorists are there - The escalation in so-called terrorism prosecutions; 16 Fed. Sent. R. 38.

  20. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). Ecoterrorism threat assessment. May 2008 http://humanewatch.org/images/uploads/2008_DHS_ecoterrorism_threat_assessment.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 2013.

  21. Department of Justice. (2003). The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Efforts to Improve the Sharing of Intelligence and Other Information. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General Audit Division, Audit Report 04–10, December 2003 http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0410/final.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 2013.

  22. Díaz Lombardo, C. (2007). Podemos caer en la victimización. Bake hitzak, 67, 37.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ekaratne, S. C. (2010). Redundant restriction: The U.K.’s offense of glorifying terrorism; 23 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 205.

  24. Engelhardt, T. (2006–2007). Foiling the man in the ski mask holding a bunny rabbit: Putting a stop to radical animal activism with animal and ecological terrorism bills; 28 Whittier L. Rev. 1041.

  25. Etzioni, A. (2011). Terrorists: a distinct species. Terrorism and Political Violence, 23(1), 1–12.

  26. Eurokeria. (2008). Comunicado de dos jóvenes acusados excepcionalmente. Indymedia Euskal Herria. 19 January 2008. http://pks.sindominio.net/ahtez/?q=es/node/1215. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.

  27. Europe Intelligence Wire. (2003). Aceh rebel negotiators on trial for terrorism, may face death sentence. July 29, 2003.

  28. Europol. (2009). TE-SAT 2009, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report. The Hague: Europol. http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/EU_Terrorism_Situation_and_Trend_Report_TE-SAT/TESAT2009.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.

  29. Fiscalía General del Estado (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) ‘Memoria Anual’ 1993

  30. FIDH. (2003). Informe anual sobre Derechos Humanos en Chile 2003.

  31. Fowler, A. (2005). Aid Architecture. Reflections on NGDO futures and the Emergence of Counter-Terrorism. Occasional Papers Series: INTRAC. January 2005.

  32. (2002). ‘Parlamentarios piden “mano dura”’ in: Austral, year LXXXVII - Nr. 31.097.

  33. (2002). ‘SNA califica de “terrorista” violencia en el sur’ in: Austral, year LXXXVII - Nr. 31.098.

  34. Frailing, K., Jr, H., & Wood, D. (2010). The social construction of deviance, conflict and the criminalization of midwives, New Orleans: 1940s and 1950s. Deviant Behavior, 31(8), 729–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Freeh, L. J. (1999). The threat to the United States posed by terrorists. Statement for the Record of Louis J. Freeh, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation Before the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies. February 4, 1999. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1999_hr/990204-freehct2.htm. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.

  36. Fuenzalida, S. (2007). La aplicación de la ley antiterrorista al dirigente Mapuche Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe. Un modelo de sentencia injusta. In Nancy & J. Aylwin (Eds.), El Gobierno de Lagos, los pueblos indígenas y el ‘nuevo trato.’ Las paradojas de la democracia chilena Yáñez. Santiago: LOM Ediciones.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fuenzalida, S. (no date). ‘Aplicación De La Legislación Antiterrorista En Contra De Personas Mapuches En Chile. http://ejp.icj.org/IMG/ExposicionSergioFuenzalida.pdf. Accessed 4 Sep 2010.

  38. Fur Commission. (2006). Animal enterprise terrorism act. http://www.furcommission.com/resource/pressSFbills.htm#Anchor-SUPPORTING-49575. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.

  39. Fur Commission. (2009). Special feature: Peter Young resources. http://www.furcommission.com/resource/pressYoung.htm#Anchor-1997-47857. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.

  40. Gallego-Díaz, S. (2010). Estados Unidos descarta en cables secretos existencia de “terrorismo mapuche” en Chile. Azkintuwe 14 December 2010. http://www.azkintuwe.org/dic_0141.htm. Accessed 15 Dec 2010.

  41. Ganor, B. (2002). Defining terrorism: is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? Police Practice and Research, 3(4), 287–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gurruchaga, Carmen. (2001). ‘«Txelis», el padre de la kale borroka’, El Mundo, 23 September 2001, http://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2001/310/1001319590.html. Accessed 25 October 2010.

  43. Gurruchaga, Carmen. (2006). Los Jefes de ETA, Madrid: La Esfera de los Libros.

    Google Scholar 

  44. González, E. (2013). Jorge Luchsinger: “Tarde o temprano esto iba a ocurrir”. In: La Tercera 26 January 2013. http://www.latercera.com/noticia/nacional/2013/01/680-505813-9-jorge-luchsinger-tarde-o-temprano-esto-iba-a-ocurrir.shtml. Accessed 15 September 2013.

  45. Handbook on Counter-Terrorism Measures: What U.S. Nonprofits and Grantmakers Need to Know. A plan-language guide to Executive Order 13224, the Patriot Act, embargoes and sanctions, IRS rules, Treasury Department voluntary guidelines, and USAID requirements. 2004.

  46. Haverkamp, R. (2013). The prognosis of terrorist attacks - limits of scientific findings. Crime, Law and Soc Change. doi:10.1007/s10611-013-9466-6.

  47. Hess, H. (2003). Like Zealots and Romans: terrorism and empire in the 21st century. Crime Law & Social Change, 39, 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Howell, J., Ishkanian, A., Obadare, E., Seckinelgin, H., & Glasius, M. (2008). The backlash against civil society in the wake of the Long War on Terror. Development in Practice, 18(1), 82–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Human Rights Watch. (2004). Aceh at war: Torture, Ill-treatment and unfair trials, 16(11) C, September 2004.

  50. Human Rights Watch. (2004). Indebido Proceso: Los Juicios Anti-Terroristas, los Tribunales Militares y los Mapuche en el Sur de Chile, 26 October 2004.

  51. Human Rights Watch. (2005). Setting an example? Counter-terrorism measures in Spain. 17(1): 1–65.

  52. Human Rights Watch. (2007). Philippines: New terrorism law puts rights at risk. July 17, 2007. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/07/15/philippines-new-terrorism-law-puts-rights-risk. Accessed 11 May 2011.

  53. Human Rights Watch. (2007). UK: Counter the threat or counterproductive? Commentary on proposed counterterrorism measures. October 2007.

  54. Human Rights Watch. (2007). El Salvador: Terrorism law misused against protesters. 30 July 2007 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/07/30/el-salvador-terrorism-law-misused-against-protesters. Accessed 11 May 2011.

  55. Humane Society of the United States. (2009). Oppose the animal enterprise terrorism act (Factsheet). http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/109_AETA_factsheet.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2011.

  56. International Council on Human Rights Policy (ICHRP). (2008). Talking about terrorism. http://www.ichrp.org/files/reports/35/129_report_en.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2011.

  57. INTRAC. (2006). Assessing the implications of counter-terrorism measures for non-governmental organisations. http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/491/Assessing-the-Implications-of-Counter-Terrorism-Measures-for-NGOs.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2011.

  58. Jones, Sidney (Southeast Asia Project Director, International Crisis Group). (2006). Terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights in Indonesia. Submission to the International Commission of Jurists, Jakarta, 4 December 2006. http://ejp.icj.org/IMG/ICGSubmission.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.

  59. La Alternativa. (2010). Conflicto todavía no se resuelve: Fiscalía No Cumplirá Acuerdo Entre El Gobierno Y Pueblo Mapuche. La Alternativa. 8 October 2010. http://www.laalternativa.org/titulares/6877. Accessed 5 Nov 2010.

  60. Landáburu, M. J. R. (2002). Provocación y Apología: delitos terrorismo. Editorial Colex

  61. Lauderdale, P., & Oliverio, A. (2005). Introduction: critical perspectives on terrorism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46(1–2), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Leiken, J. (2004). Leaving wonderland: Distinguishing terrorism from other types of crime; 36 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 503.

  63. Louis, J. (2009–2010). Over-kill: The ramifications of applying New York’s anti-terrorism statute too broadly; 60 Syracuse L. Rev. 640.

  64. Lynch, T. (2009). Over-criminalization of conduct/over-federalization of criminal law. In: Statement before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives, July 22, 2009.

  65. Lynch, A. (2010). The tenacity of bad law: Why anti-terrorism laws proliferate and persist. Presented at: Workshop 6 – The rule of law in the age of terrorism, VIIIth World Congress of the International Association of Constitutional Law, Mexico 6–10 December 2010.

  66. McCulloch, J., Pickering, S., McQueen, R., & Tham, J.-C. (2004–2005). Suppressing the Financing of Terrorism; 16 Current Issues Crim. Just. 72.

  67. McMahon, J. (2007). Developments in the regulations of NGOs via Government Counter-Terrorism Measures and Policies. Policy Briefing Paper 11: INTRAC.

  68. Miller, G. (2010). A tricky balance between activists and researchers’ rights. Science, 329(5999), 1589–1590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Müller, T. (2013). Preventive detention as a counter-terrorism instrument in Germany. Crime, Law and Social Change. doi:10.1007/s10611-013-9468-4.

  70. Oliverio, A., & Lauderdale, P. (2005). Terrorism as deviance or social control. Suggestions for future research. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46(1–2), 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. OMB Watch, and Grantmakers Without Borders. (2008). Collateral damage. How the war on terror hurts charities, Foundations, and the People They Serve. http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3727. Accessed 11 May 2011.

  72. Orellana, M. A. (2005). Indigenous peoples, energy and environmental justice—The Pangue/Ralco hydroelectric project in Chile’s Alto BioBio. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 23, 511.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Parker, A. (2009). Beyond Aeta: How corporate-crafted legislation brands activists as terrorists. New York: National Lawyers Guild. http://www.nlg.org/Beyond%20AETA%20White%20Paper.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.

  74. Platt, T. (1999). Engaging political will. FCUSA Commentary, March 4, 1999. http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsD9.htm. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.

  75. Potter, W. (2011). Justice department warned the FBI that focusing on environmentalists ignores more violent threats. In: GreenIsTheNewRed.com. January 11, 2011.

  76. Potter, W. (2011). Green is the new red. An insider’s account of a social movement under Siege. San Francisco: City Lights Books.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Quigley, N., & Belinda, P. (11 January 2007). Security and civil society. The impact of counter-terrorism measures on civil society organisations. NCVO (National Council of Voluntary Organisations).

  78. Roell, P., & Worcester, M. (2010). Low intensity terrorist threats – a future trend in Europe? http://www.wpfdc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=252%3Alow-intensity-terrorist-threats-a-future-trend-in-europe&catid=40%3Aanalytical-materials&Itemid=113&lang=en. Accessed 30 June 2011.

  79. Rosenfeld, B., & Regan, L. (2010). Legal lessons from the green scare. In: Counterpunch 23 November 2010. http://counterpunch.com/rosenfeld11232010.html. Accessed 24 Nov 2010.

  80. Sageman, M. (2011). Civilian trials and the prevention of atrocities. Terrorism and Political Violence, 23, 13–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Scarce, R. (2006). Eco-Warriors. Understanding the radical environmental movement. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Scharf, M. P. (2004). Defining terrorism as the peacetime equivalent of war crimes: Problems and prospects; 36 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 361.

  83. Scheinin, M. (2008). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Mission to Spain, A/HRC/10/3/Add.2.

  84. Schmid, A. (2004). Terrorism—the definitional problem; 36 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 378.

  85. Schuster, H. (2005). Domestic terror: Who’s most dangerous? In: CNN.com. 24 August 2005. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/schuster.column/index.html. Accessed 11 May 2011.

  86. Sen, K. (October 2007). The war on terror and the onslaught on development. In Policy Briefing Paper 10, edited by INTRAC.

  87. Sen, K., & Morris, T. (2008). Civil society and the war on terror: INTRAC.

  88. Sonderegger, L. (2013). Torture and the fight against terrorism. Crime, Law and Social Change. doi:10.1007/s10611-013-9469-3.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Stavenhagen, R. (2003). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 2003/56.

  90. Sudnow, D. (1965). Normal crimes: sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office. Social Problems, 12(3), 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Symeonidou-Kastanidou, E. (2004). Defining terrorism. In: 12 Eur. J. Crime Crim. L. & Crim. Just. 14.

  92. Terra/Efe. (2000). Juicios A Presuntos Miembros De Grupos De Apoyo A ETA. 12 March 2000. http://www.terra.es/actualidad/terrorismo/historial/160300-1.htm. Accessed 25 Oct 2010.

  93. Thorne, K., & Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. (2007). Terrorist lists and humanitarian assistance. www.odihpn.org. Accessed 11 May 2011.

  94. Tiefenbrun, S. A. (2002–2003). Semiotic approach to a legal definition of terrorism, 9 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 358.

  95. Tilly, C. (2004). Terror, terrorism, terrorists. In: Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium. (Mar 2004), pp. 5–13.

  96. Toledo Llancaqueo, V. (2007). Cronología de los principales hechos en relación a la represión de la protesta social mapuche, Chile 2000–2007. In: OSAL (Buenos Aires: CLACSO) year VIII, Nº 22, September.

  97. Tortoroli, C. (2010). Gangs of New York are terrorists: The misapplication of the New York antiterrorism statute due to the lack of comprehensive gang legislation’ 84 St. John’s L. Rev. 392.

  98. Univision. (2009). ‘¡ASI DE CARADURAS! Gobierno de Chile niega en la ONU que abuse de su ley antiterrorista contra mapuches… Dice que sólo son 16 VECES en menos de diez años. Unas cuantas no más.’ Mapuexpress, 24 September 2009. http://www.mapuexpress.net/?act=news&id=4719. Accessed 14 Sep 2010.

  99. US Embassy in Santiago. (2010). Myth vs. reality in Chile’s mapuche conflict. 09SANTIAGO826, Diplomatic Cable released through Wikileaks, http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/09/09SANTIAGO826.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2010.

  100. van den Broek, H. (2004). Borroka - the legitimation of street violence in the political discourse of radical basque nationalists. Terrorism and Political Violence, 16(4), 714–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Vargas, J. L. (2010). Comités ONU preocupados: Expertos critican aplicación de ley antiterrorista contra mapuches en huelga de hambre. 26 August 2010. Observatorio Ciudadano http://www.observatorio.cl/chile-en-sistema-internacional/comites-onu-preocupados-expertos-critican-aplicacion-de-ley-antiterrorista-contra-mapuches-en-huelga-de-hambre/. Accessed 4 Nov 2010.

  102. Villegas Díaz, M. (2007). El Derecho Penal Del Enemigo Y La Criminalización Del Pueblo Mapuche. Working paper del Foro N-OR, North Forum for Law and Rights of Native Peoples.

  103. Walsh, E. J. (2000). The animal enterprise protection act: A scientist’s perspective brings the law into focus. Lab Animal. February 2000, 29 (2).

  104. Washington Post Editorial. (2010). The Supreme Court goes too far in the name of fighting terrorism. Washington Post, June 22, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062104267.html. Accessed 8 April 2011.

  105. Waxman, M. C. (2011). Terrorism: why categories matter. Terrorism and Political Violence, 23, 19–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Weisselberg, C. D. (2008). Terror in the courts: beginning to assess the impact of terrorism-related prosecutions on domestic criminal law and procedure in the USA. Crime Law & Social Change, 50, 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Zeidan, S. (2005–2006). Agreeing to disagree: Cultural relativism and the difficulty of defining terrorism in a Post-9/11 World; 29 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 217.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Max Planck Institute for International and Foreign Criminal Law, the Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law, the DAAD, Marie Curie (HUMCRICON), Columbia Law School, the Huygens Scholarships Talent Programme, the Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds and the Dr. Hendrik Muller Vaderlandsch Fund for their financial support to the research that made this article possible. I would like to thank Sytske Groenewald, Andreas Armborst, Daniel Gregor, Bart Stapert, Dave Stewart, Teresa Manso, Susanne Forster and Chris Murphy for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolijn Terwindt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Terwindt, C. Protesters as terrorists?. Crime Law Soc Change 62, 207–234 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9470-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9470-x

Keywords

Navigation